MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070654741 · doi:10.1080/17449626.2011.556658

Giorgio Agamben's lessons and limitations in confronting the problem of genocide

2011· article· en· W2070654741 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Ethics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideSolidaritySovereigntyHumanitarian interventionNormativeSovereign stateSociologyPower (physics)Responsibility to protectLawInternational communityPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEnvironmental ethicsHuman rightsPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, I work through the possible contours of an anti-genocide based on a framework informed by the work of Giorgio Agamben. Such a framework posits the inherent need to circumvent sovereign power within any form of normative activism. To begin, I show how the nascent anti-genocide movement promotes an ideal in which ‘Western’ states, particularly the USA, accept the global responsibility to protect persecuted life beyond national boundaries. Using Agamben, I argue that this vision also entails an acceptance of a sovereign framework for the valuation of life, thus failing to confront the inherent power of the sovereign to condemn life in the first place. I then highlight the limitations that Agamben's ontology places on us in dealing with this inherent problem within the sovereign-subject relationship. By positing an alternative ontology, I suggest the possibility of establishing communities of solidarity that challenge the sovereign's self-ascribed role as the absolute valuator of life. Counter to Agamben, I argue that the basis for such communities could be a dedication to the universal sacredness of human life, which is maintained independently of, and in challenge to, sovereign power. Keywords: genocidesovereign powerAgambenhumanismtransnational solidarity Notes The question of whether Darfur counts as an example of genocide is a complicated one and beyond the scope of this paper. Of importance in this case is the fact that massive state-sponsored humanitarian transgressions occurred that were seen by the anti-genocide movement as requiring some form of foreign intervention. Ignatieff, now the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, was at one time director of the Car Center for Human Rights Policy, where he collaborated with leading the anti-genocide activist Samantha Power. Rasch Citation(2007) relates Agamben's ontological focus to the problem of the law of the excluded middle, in which a ‘law seems to include itself within the set it adjudicates’. Such a situation results, as Russel and Whitehead concluded, in a ‘vicious circle fallacy’ (p. 93). Indeed, it is doubtful that Agamben would even recognize the concepts of mutual respect and care as in any way relevant to the ever immanent and irreparable world of the coming community. Yet it is this abstractness that, I contend, makes Agamben's ethics almost impossible to implement in the non-utopic world we still live in.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it